![\"Deb](\"https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/smjrQUpkbWs\/hqdefault.jpg\")
<\/a>\r\n\r\nDeb Cox speaking against APP-2019-09 Lawton White (318 Eager Road) at ZBOA 2020-01-07.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\nHowever, “Mrs. Quarterman stated that ZBOA\u2019s concern was land use, not who lives in\r\nthem. Mrs. Quarterman stated that if it had not become nonconforming, it would not be on the agenda.\r\nMrs. Quarterman asked\r\n\r\n if there was a condition placed on the approval, if the Board decided to approve,\r\nthat stated no halfway houses were to occupy the property, would that alleviate any concerns? Ms. Cox\r\nstated it would not, that the duplex still lowers property values. Ms. Cox stated they had more property\r\nowners moving in rather than renters, and she was happy with that.”\r\n
\r\nThere was much more opposition from more people, and further discussion among Commissioners and Staff, such as, “Chairman McCall asked how staff would\r\nknow it was a halfway house. Mr. Martin stated that licensing and periodic site visits could indicate a\r\nchange in the use of the property. Mr. Martin stated that the residents were not sent there from a facility,\r\nbut were voluntarily there. Mrs. Quarterman stated her understanding was that this property was not\r\nappropriate for a transitional care facility or halfway house. Mr. Martin stated the zoning was not\r\nappropriate for either. Mr. Brantley stated he did not understand why they could not place a limit on the\r\nnumber of people in the big house. Mr. Martin stated that anything was legal till challenged, and that the\r\nduplex was the only thing being addressed at this point. Mr. Martin stated he felt that putting conditions\r\non the duplex might be reasonable. Mr. Martin stated, to clear up confusion, there is no request for\r\nrezoning or to utilize the property for a halfway house, and that the only request was for a PELUC to re-establish the duplex.”\r\n
\r\nThe final outcome was: “Mrs. Quarterman made a motion to\r\napprove as presented with two conditions–that the duplex building may not be enlarged or expanded and\r\nshall not be occupied by more than two residents each (for four residents total), and the existing\r\nvegetative buffer in the rear yard along the northern and eastern property lines shall remain undisturbed.\r\nVice-Chairman Strickland seconded the motion. The motion was called and carried with a vote of 5 to 0.”\r\n
\r\nSee also \r\nthe agenda<\/a>\r\nand\r\nthe board packet<\/a>,\r\ncourtesy ZBOA member Gretchen Quarterman.\r\nPlus\r\nthe minutes<\/a>, which have much more detail.\r\n<\/p>\r\n \r\nHere’s\r\n\r\na LAKE video playlist:<\/a>\r\n<\/p>\r\n \r\n